MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963979579 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e318260cc33

Probiotics in the critically ill

2012· review· en· W1963979579 on OpenAlexaff
Elaine O. Petrof, Rupinder Dhaliwal, William Manzanares, Jennie Johnstone, Daren K. Heyland

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonKingston General HospitalClinical Evaluation Research UnitQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalIntensive care unitRandomized controlled trialVentilator-associated pneumoniaInternal medicinePneumoniaIntensive careIntensive care medicineRelative riskPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Critical illness results in changes to the microbiology of the gastrointestinal tract, leading to a loss of commensal flora and an overgrowth of potentially pathogenic bacteria. Administering certain strains of live bacteria (probiotics) to critically ill patients may restore balance to the microbiota and have positive effects on immune function and gastrointestinal structure and function. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of probiotics in critically ill patients on clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We searched computerized databases, reference lists of pertinent articles, and personal files from 1980 to 2011. We included randomized controlled trials enrolling critically ill adults, which evaluated probiotics compared to a placebo and reported clinically important outcomes (infections, mortality, and length of stay). A total of 23 randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria. Probiotics were associated with reduced infectious complications as documented in 11 trials (risk ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.99; p = .03; test for heterogeneity p = .05; I 44%). When data from the seven trials reporting ventilator-associated pneumonia were pooled, ventilator-associated pneumonia rates were also significantly reduced with probiotics (risk ratio 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.59-0.97; p = .03; test for heterogeneity p = .16; I 35%). Probiotics were associated with a trend toward reduced intensive care unit mortality (risk ratio 0.80; 95% confidence interval 0.59-1.09; p = .16; test for heterogeneity p = .89; I 0%) but did not influence hospital mortality. Probiotics had no effect on intensive care unit or hospital length of stay. Compared to trials of higher methodological quality, greater treatment effects were observed in trials of a lower methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: Probiotics appear to reduce infectious complications including ventilator-associated pneumonia and may influence intensive care unit mortality. However, clinical and statistical heterogeneity and imprecise estimates preclude strong clinical recommendations. Further research on probiotics in the critically ill is warranted.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations130
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207